By Francessca S. Abalos
LAWYERS for Vice-President (VP) Sara Duterte-Carpio on Monday challenged a financial analyst’s finding that she and her husband had accumulated P817.87 million in unexplained wealth, questioning the completeness of the documents used and his failure to interview the couple.
Defense lawyer Kristine R. Ferrer questioned forensic financial analyst Alexander B. Cabrera about the documents he used to prepare his report, which found that Ms. Duterte and her husband Manases R. Carpio had accumulated undeclared wealth from 2022 to 2025.
Mr. Cabrera testified on Oct. 10 that the Vice-President’s statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) for those years were inaccurate because she failed to declare personal and real properties and retained interests in several companies.
The defense questioned whether his findings were supported by sufficient documentation.
Mr. Cabrera said his report relied on copies of the Vice-President’s SALNs, Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records, corporate financial statements and bank documents.
The prosecution provided the initial records in June, while subpoenaed bank documents were transmitted in September.
Mr. Cabrera said his team had been unable to examine all the subpoenaed bank records because it had only three weeks to complete the report.
He also said his team had neither obtained documents directly from the Vice-President and her husband nor interviewed the couple, their accountant or auditor. “Whatever was only given to us was the only thing we could use as a basis,” he added.
Mr. Cabrera said the report could have incorporated financial records from the Duterte couple had they responded to requests from the House of Representatives or the Senate.
He added that he could revise his findings if the couple submitted additional documents.
The analyst also said he had no personal knowledge of whether Ms. Duterte knew about bank accounts held solely by her husband.
He said the Vice-President’s signature did not appear on forms for the purchase of manager’s checks involving a joint bank account with her father, former President Rodrigo R. Duterte.
Responding to questions from Senator-Judge Ana Theresia N. Hontiveros-Baraquel, Mr. Cabrera said establishing unexplained wealth did not necessarily require proof of deliberate concealment.
“The law’s answer to this is the ‘manifestly disproportionate’ standard,” he said. “When it is manifestly disproportionate, the question of intent no longer matters; it is already obvious. And this happens year after year.”
Mr. Cabrera was the final witness presented by the House prosecution panel, which has completed its presentation of evidence.
Lead House prosecutor Gerville R. Luistro on Oct. 10 said the prosecution would conclude its case earlier than planned and drop Article III of the impeachment complaint, which concerns alleged bribery.
The Senate impeachment court will consider three remaining charges: misuse of confidential funds under Article I, unexplained wealth under Article II and grave threats against President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. under Article IV.
Ms. Luistro expressed confidence in the prosecution’s evidence, saying the defense would face difficulties rebutting its findings.
“If I will place myself inside their shoes, with the strong and clear evidence that the prosecution has presented already, I really don’t know how I am going to counter it by evidence,” she told reporters.
At a separate briefing on Monday, Ms. Duterte rejected the allegations, accusing the House prosecution panel of fabricating claims about unexplained wealth and funding from Chinese companies.
An AMLC official earlier testified that the Vice-President’s foundation and a company linked to her husband had received P319 million from companies in Mainland China and Hong Kong.
Ms. Duterte accused Mr. Marcos of using the allegations to discredit her ahead of the 2028 elections.
House prosecutor Jose Manuel Tadeo I. Diokno said the impeachment proceedings concerned accountability and public trust rather than the Vice-President personally.
“[These proceedings are] really not about her as a person,” he told the impeachment court. “It’s about leadership, whether governance is sound and, especially, the suitability or fitness of an executive official to continue holding office.”